JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Vote-by-Mail: An Opportunity for Truly Democratic Elections in the Era of Covid-19
Brief #12—Technology
By Charles A Rubin
With election day less than eight months away and primary races in many states already delayed or pushed further out on the calendar, concern is mounting about how an election can be conducted under the current or even more draconian restrictions related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Senators Amy Klobucher (D-Minnesota) and Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) have introduced the Natural Disaster and Emergency Ballot Act of 2020 which provides funding and guidance for states, counties and localities to quickly move to vote-by-mail elections. The legislation also strongly discourages on-line balloting efforts which it deems insecure.
UPDATE : Coronavirus
Brief #71—Health
By Taylor J Smith
This fourteen-day period has been dubbed the most critical point of this pandemic, where if the Americans efficiently limit the spread of the coronavirus, an anticipated crash of the healthcare system can be avoided. The commonly heard “flattening of the curve” refers to the wave of cases, where the high wave is a surge in cases.
The Pluses and Minuses of Government’s Recent Response
Brief #1—The Coronavirus Government Watch Post
By Sean Gray
The Coronavirus Government Watch Post is a new U.S. RESIST NEWS blog post written by Sean Gray. The Post provides information and analysis of the federal government’s response to the coronavirus. Wherever possible we seek to be supportive as the coronavirus threatens the health and economic welfare of our nation, and we need government leadership to deal with the virus crisis. However, we also will offer constructive criticism, as merited, of our government’s efforts.
Coronavirus and the Economy: What a difference a week makes!
Brief #69—Economics
By Rosalind Gottfried
In the past week a potential economic slowdown has escalated to predictions of a recession with one article describing the economy as “all gone to hell.” With many people adopting a social distancing approach and public events being canceled, repercussions have been felt across many industries and activities whereas previously it was hoped that these would be limited to industries directly impacted by the public health contagion.
WORLD WAR III IS THE FIGHT TO CONTAIN THE CORONA VIRUS
Opinion Editorial
By Ron Israel
We have worried that there would be a 3rd world war since the end of the 2nd World War in 1945. Pundits speculated that the 3rd world war would come from an escalation of an existing great power confrontation, like the Cuban missile crisis of 1962, or by the gradual global expansion of a regional conflict like the Korean or Vietnam wars; or through the unauthorized use of nuclear weapons by rogue states and non-state actors. But although none of these predictions has materialized we find ourselves today at the onset of World War III caused by a microbe—the corona virus.
US EPA Seeks to Limit What is Considered Usable Science
Brief #78—Environment
By Jacob Morton
UPDATE : Coronavirus
Brief #70—Health Policy
ByTaylor Smith
Hunter Biden, Donald Trump Jr. and the Perks of Their Father’s Offices
Brief #14—Corruption Blog
By Sean Gray
U.S. Congress On Verge Of Passing First Federal Anti – Lynching Law
Brief #116—Civil Rightsbr>
By Rod Maggay
Florida Enacts “Poll Tax” Fifty – Five Years After Being Outlawed By U.S. Constitution; State Action
Policy Summary
The Twenty – Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states “The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election…shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.”
In 2018, the State of Florida placed the Voting Rights Restoration for Felons Initiative on the November 2018 ballot. That initiative, popularly known as Florida Amendment 4, was a proposal to amend the Florida Constitution that sought to restore voting rights to Florida citizens who had lost their voting rights after they had been convicted of a felony. Under the Florida Constitution a Florida resident who had lost his or her right to vote because of a felony conviction continued to be banned from voting even after the completion of their sentence and other requirements such as parole and probation. Florida voters overwhelmingly approved Florida Amendment 4 with 64% approving out of nearly eight million votes cast. An initial estimate predicts that 1.4 million Floridians convicted of a felony will have their voting rights restored. (Those convicted of murder or sexual assaults are excluded from having their voting rights restored under the initiative).
However, Florida Republican legislators and Republican Governor Ron De Santis, who had been opposed to the ballot initiative from the beginning, introduced Senate Bill 7066 in the state legislature that would add additional requirements to Amendment 4. Before having their voting rights restored, felons would be additionally required to pay all overdue and pending court costs, fines and fees before being permitted to register to vote in Florida. The bill passed the Florida state legislature and Gov. De Santis signed SB 7066 into law on June 28, 2019. After signing the bill, numerous non – profit groups filed suit to challenge the additional requirements. LEARN MORE
Analysis
The events undertaken by Republican politicians in Florida are astonishing in their disregard for the U.S. Constitution and the majority of Florida voters who made their will known in the November 2018 election.
As discussed above, the Twenty – Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution explicitly states that a state may not deny a citizen the right to vote for failure to pay any poll tax or other tax. The prohibition is clear and yet Republicans in Florida went ahead with the new bill anyways. The text of the new law signed by the Governor might use words like court costs, fines or fees but there is no mistake that the law is conditioning the right to vote on whether a person first pays money up front before being allowed to register. No fine – tuning of words or a classification of fees can ever change how this transaction would eventually play out if implemented – that someone in this country would first have to give money before exercising their right to vote. That scenario is simply a violation of one of the Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
In addition to the constitutional questions, the bill just passed by Republicans is in direct contravention to what a majority of voters in Florida wanted. Residents of Florida were well aware of what the consequences would be if the Voting Rights Restoration for Felons Initiative was approved – that former felons would have their voting rights restored. Florida residents approved it anyways and did so in an overwhelming fashion. So why did Gov. De Santis and other Republican legislators wait until after the results of the election to add additional restrictions? Why didn’t they push for these restrictions to be added to the text of the initiative in order to have the residents of Florida have their say on them in the 2018 election? Maybe they were hoping that the initiative they had been opposed to from the beginning would not pass but that did not turn out to be the case. So now, instead of respecting the will of the voters, Gov. De Santis and other Republican politicians have decided to unilaterally impose additional restrictions that are more to their liking, albeit unconstitutional on its face and in opposition to the results of an election. These moves undertaken by the Republican leadership in Florida hint back to tactics often used by whites against African – American voters from the days of Jim Crow and speak to the levels of voter suppression that still occurs across the country in a very divisive and hostile partisan America. It is a modern day version of a poll tax and should be stricken from the books at the first opportunity. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
- American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – blog post from non – profit group challenging SB in court.
- Brennan Center for Justice – comments from non – profit group on Florida poll tax.
- NAACP Legal Defense Fund – comments from non – profit group challenging SB in court.
This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact Rod@USResistnews.org.
Photo by David Masemore
The EPA’s Affordable Clean Energy Rule (ACE) Rolls Back Regulations for Coal Industry
Policy Summary
In response to President Trump’s Executive Order 13873, Andrew Wheeler, Trump appointed Environmental Protection Agency administrator, announced the introduction of the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule that will replace the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan (CPP), which was stayed by the supreme court in 2016.
According to the EPA’s fact sheet, the ACE is comprised of two distinct acts: the repeal of the CPP, and the introduction of new emissions standards and guidelines for implementation on a state-by-state basis.
The explicit goal of these new regulations is to support energy affordability while gradually reducing emissions by transferring regulatory oversight of coal-energy from the Federal government to individual states. More stringent Federal regulations promised to reduce the number of coal fired plants whereas the EPA estimates that ACE will prolong the life-span of hundreds of coal-fired energy plants covered under more relaxed state regulation.
Citing the 2016 supreme court decision, Wheeler and the EPA under President Trump claim that the CPP was an overreach of the Agency’s jurisdiction in as much as it set unrealistic goals on individual states’ autonomy from the Federal level. Hence, the ACE is meant to address what it sees as an overreach of federal authority and to outline achievable and realistic goals.
The second part of the ACE is to set new regulatory guidelines for emission standards that are to be based on provisions introduced at the state level. States will have three years to submit plans for emissions regulation to be approved by the EPA. The ACE will replace overall emission reduction with what they call best system of emissions reduction (BSER); rather than reducing emissions, the ACE will focus on the most efficient technological improvements.
Policy Analysis
The EPA’s ACE regulation dilutes the impact of energy regulation by couching it in language that falsely implies sustainability vis-à-vis technological efficiency. In their recent press briefing, Wheeler and the EPA described their new regulations in a way that emphasizes the importance of technological efficiency as a means to reduce emissions while at the same time sustaining coal-fired energy.
This approach to energy regulation shares an important assumption with a theory known as ecological modernization (EMT), which believes that the optimal solution to climate change rests in improving the technological efficiency. Clearly the ACE follows EMT to the extent that it emphasizes technological improvements in lieu of reducing overall emissions.
The EMT and by proxy the ACE has its share of criticism. The main problem with the technological fixes proposed by ecological modernization is known as the treadmill of production. As processes become more efficient, production increases since less is needed to get more. In the context of EPA policy, the treadmill of production suggests that the ACE will lead to greater overall output of emissions since there will no longer be a regulation capping total emissions, only the machinery used in coal-fired plants.
Ecological modernization uses the language of environmental sustainability without committing to real change. Recently Masha Gessen wrote about a similarly empty use of language by the Trump appointed Director of Policy Planning at the State Department. In her article Gessen points out that developing policy around the hunches and intuition of the President problematically undermines the factual basis of policy. Hunch-based policies will not become fact-based by couching them in the language of the State Department. It is the separation of speech from the common world that undermines the power needed to create a stable political reality. It is the same in the case of the EPA’S new ACE rules. The federal agency continues to roll out environmentally damaging policies that fly in the face of scientific consensus, ignore factual reality, and attempt to conceal this by using the language of sustainability.
Resistance Resources:
- Sierra Club – The Sierra Club has information linking to local chapters and information related to regional issues.
- 5calls – This service provides you with easy access to the phone numbers of elected officials and provides you with speaking points about specfic issues. Climate change is one of the many subjects they have developed prompts for you to speak directly to representatives about important policy issues relating to climate change.
- Citizens’ Climate Lobby – Get involved in a grass roots chapter working toward political solutions to climate change.
- 350 – 350 is a climate action group that links to local organizations that are involved in fighting for a sustainable environment.
- Green Peace – This site includes several different venues to engage in resistance movements.
Photo by RawFilm
U.S. Supreme Court Issues Decision Blocking “Citizenship Question” From Being Added To Next Census
Policy Summary
In March 2018, shortly after he was appointed Secretary of Commerce for the Department of Commerce, Wilbur Ross announced in an internal memorandum that he intended to reinstate a question on the upcoming 2020 national census regarding the citizenship status of each member residing in a household. A national census questionnaire had not asked the citizenship status question since 1950. The proposal was highly controversial and numerous lawsuits were filed throughout the country to block the question from appearing on the upcoming questionnaire. Two separate lawsuits were filed in federal district courts in the State of New York to block the question and later consolidated into a single case. The federal district court later requested additional materials because they deemed the information at hand was incomplete. After additional materials were submitted and a bench trial the federal district court ruled the Secretary’s action to reinstate the citizenship question arbitrary and capricious, based on a pretextual rationale and violated the Census Act. The case was appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit but the case was eventually appealed directly to the U.S. Supreme Court before the Court of Appeals could hear the case. The Supreme Court accepted the case because of the looming deadline of June 2019 to begin printing and distributing questionnaires for the 2020 census.
On June 27, 2019 the Supreme Court handed down a decision which effectively banned the citizenship question for the 2020 census but remanded the case back to the lower court which leaves open the door for the citizenship inquiry to be added on a census questionnaire in the future. LEARN MORE
Analysis
The Supreme Court case Department of Commerce v. New York is a win for supporters of those who fought to keep a citizenship status question off the 2020 decennial census but the opinion only applies to the 2020 census. Because of the reasons laid out in the ruling, it is completely conceivable that a citizenship question could appear on the 2030 and 2040 censuses and beyond. Only the timing of the decision and the irrational approach undertaken by the Secretary worked to keep the citizenship question off the 2020 census.
In the majority opinion written by the Chief Justice, he writes that Secretary Ross’s decision to look into reinstating the citizenship question was not supported by the evidence in the record of “why” the Secretary wanted to do this. The rationale the Secretary gave appeared to be a “mismatch” with his eventual decision and appeared to be more of a “distraction” from other political reasons behind his rationale. The sole reason finally given by the Secretary was for better enforcement of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) but there were no indications he considered the VRA when he initially announced the proposal. Also, his interactions with other government agencies to gather citizenship data focused on other issues and made no mention of voting rights. Based on case law interpreting the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), agency decisions must “articulate a satisfactory explanation” which must also “include a rational connection between the facts found and the choices made.” Decisions must also be “within the bounds of reasoned decision-making.” What the Secretary gave for trying to add the citizenship question did not satisfy these standards because the evidence before him and the statements he made did not support his eventual course of action. Instead, in the words of the Chief Justice, his reasoning appeared contrived.
But even if this decision does not allow the question to be added for the 2020 census, the rest of the opinion makes clear that if a future Secretary or the Department of Commerce is able to marshal supporting evidence in favor of adding a citizenship question and can articulate it in a reasoned and logical way that there might not be anything to stop the question from being eventually added. The opinion notes that a citizenship question has not been on the census since 1950 but that it had been a regular feature of census questionnaires throughout the nineteenth century. It is very conceivable that supporters of the citizenship question for the 2030 census could well undertake a more organized approach with this court opinion as a guideline as to what to do and what not to do. The citizenship question has been struck from the 2020 questionnaire but this opinion only sets the stage for a possible and very likely addition of the citizenship question for the 2030 census and others to come in the coming decades. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
- Brennan Center for Justice – non – profit group’s comments on Department of Commerce v. New York.
- American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – non – profit group’s comments on the case.
- Common Cause – non – profit group’s comments on the case.
This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact Rod@USResistnews.org.
Photo by Claire Anderson
Trump Signs Humanitarian Aid Bill
Policy Summary
On July 1, President Trump signed a Congressional bill enabling $4.6 Billion in humanitarian aid money to be sent to the US Southern Border. The funding is intended to provide relief to immigration agencies who are stretched too thin by the ever-growing number of migrants seeking asylum. The bill will fund immigration related efforts of the Office of Refugee Resettlement, the Department of Defense, and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency. Funding also will enable the Justice Department to hire 30 new teams of immigration judges. Roughly $2.9 Billion will go towards the care of children who enter the US unaccompanied; and $1 Billion has been allocated for the Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) to help process migrants.
The bill that the President signed originated in the Senate. Many progressives in the House found the existing bill to lack vital migrant protections and firm caps on how long unaccompanied children may be detained. They also preferred a House immigration bill that had more protections for migrant children. However, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi felt pressure from moderates to pass the Senate’s version in order to 1) get resources to the children fastest and 2) get the bill passed before the July 4 recess.
Analysis
House Liberals did not find the bill the President signed specific enough and there is a widespread distrust of the Trump Administration’s use of immigration funds. Thus, Speaker Pelosi’s hasty but difficult decision to rush the bill to the House floor has created a rift among Democrats. Many are opposed to providing ICE with more funding and providing Trump with financial resources without firm guidelines to prevent misallocation and/or corruption.
Engagement Resources
- The ACLU: a non-profit with a longstanding commitment to preserving and protecting the individual rights and liberties the Constitution and US laws guarantee all its citizens. You can also donate monthly to counter Trump’s attacks on people’s rights. Recently, the ACLU has filed a lawsuit challenging the separation of families at the border.
- The National Immigration Law Center: an organization that exclusively dedicates itself to defending and furthering the rights of low income immigrants and strives to educate decision makers on the impacts and effects of their policies on this overlooked part of the population.
- FWD.us: an organization that aims to promote the tech community to support policies that keep the American Dream alive. They specifically and currently focus on immigration reform.
Photo by Jon Tyson
Why Does the Ban on Huawei Matter?
Policy Summary
On May 15, 2019 the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) of the U.S. Department of Commerce placed the Chinese technology giant Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. on the Entity List, effectively banning United States companies from doing business with it. This action stems from information the Commerce Department claims to have that concludes that Huawei is engaged in activities that are contrary to U.S. national security or foreign policy interest. On Saturday June 29, 2019 at the G20 summit in Osaka, Japan President Trump announced some easing of these restrictions. These have not been reflected in the Commerce Department’s website. The company is also under US indictment for fraud and theft of US trade secrets. Huawei’s CFO Wanzhou Meng is awaiting extradition to the US in Canada.
Analysis
Huawei, the 2nd largest manufacturer of mobile devices in the world and a leading internet infrastructure equipment supplier is a relatively unknown name in the US. This is largely due to a ban of it’s networking and smartphone equipment from as far back as 2012 over concerns that the company, with close ties to the Chinese government, could be building backdoor access into its products. This access would allow surveillance of the networks that its equipment services. This has not stopped the company from selling its equipment in foreign markets and playing a major role in the development of 5G wireless networks outside of the US. Huawei’s addition to the Entity List would ban US companies, particularly large chip manufacturers, from selling their products to the company.
The effect of Huawei’s addition to the Entity List removes a lucrative market from US microchip manufacturers such as Intel, AMD and Micron. These companies are avoiding this ban to some extent by selling their products through overseas subsidiaries.
It would also remove a significant market for Google’s Android operating system which now runs on Huawei smartphones, threatening the rise of a rival less secure base operating system. US software developers would presumably not be allowed to sell their products to Huawei.
The whole effort appears to be an uncoordinated attempt by the Trump Administration to prevent Chinese companies from “stealing” US technologies. It effectively, however, creates a barrier for US chip makers and others to cashing in on the very lucrative market to roll out 5G wireless networks and threatens US based jobs – contrary to a major goal of the Trump Administration to protect American jobs. The longer this market uncertainty remains, the more likely Huawei will turn to other non-US chip makers and software developers to service their supply chain.
Resistance Resources
- US Department of Commerce announcement of addition of Huawei to Entity List
- US Department of Justice Indictment of Huawei
- Google’s Reaction to the ban on doing business with Huawei
- Huawei’s rise to power from Foreign Policy Magazine
Photo by Lin Zhizhao
States Have a Mixed Response in Dealing with a Nation-wide Measles Outbreak
Policy
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo ended religious exemptions by amending the provision in NY A02371, to combat rising anti-vaccination communities. Since January 1st of this year, there have been 1,077 cases of measles in 28 states, an increase from 372 from 2018, after the disease was declared eliminated from the US in 2000. The largest outbreaks were found in New York were found in Orthodox Jewish communities who are believed to have traveled to Israel where a current outbreak is occurring, in addition to Butte County, CA, and Portland Oregon. The majority of those infected were individuals who had yet to be vaccinated, either due to being younger than the CDC recommended vaccination age of 12 -15 months old or were not given vaccinations by the requests of their parents or guardians. New York joins Washington, Maine and California in setting limitations to those opposing vaccines, Mississippi and West Virginia do not permit religious exemptions.
The law takes effect immediately but gives unvaccinated students up to 30 days after entering a school to provide documentation of at least starting their immunization sequence. The law however, does not change in exempting children who can not have vaccines for medical reasons, nor are there any legal repercussions should a parent fail to vaccinate a child.
Analysis
While this policy change has been created in good faith, critics combat this mandate with protections of religious and moral freedoms. There are 45 other states that still having similar exemptions, allowing parents to skip vaccinations. With such allowances available in other states, anti-vaccination parents are considering leaving New York and the other four states setting limitations.
Advocates for this law stress that religious beliefs and fears about vaccines should not overshadow scientific evidence. Those who also feel as though this mandate infringes upon their rights should recall the 1905 Supreme Court ruling that provided states the right to enforce compulsory vaccinations laws. More recently, a 2018 California case upheld the law’s removal of exemptions noting “The right to practice religion freely does not include liberty to expose the community or the child to communicable disease or the latter to ill health or death”.
By strengthening mandates, vaccinations are proven to increase and therefore protect. Supporters for the law also note that while the law is a step in the right direction, it does not go far enough. There are no legal sanctions for lack of compliance with the law. Additionally, some feel the focus should be shifted from reducing exemptions to tightening the medical exemption process, ensuring the waivers that are given are medically appropriate and true.
Engagement Resources:
- Measles and Rubella Initiative is a global partnership leading coordinated efforts to achieve a world without measles and rubella.
Photo by Ani Kolleshi
Hicks Stonewalls, Mueller to Testify
by Rudy Martinez, June 29, 2018
In an op-ed published by The Guardian on June 17th, Heather Cox Richardson, a professor of history at Boston College laid out a historical argument for impeaching Trump.
Richardson posited that every Republican president post-Nixon has pushed the envelope in terms of what is considered lawful behavior. Democrats have served as perpetual spectators in the name of “civility,” reassuring themselves with the futile thought that things couldn’t get any worse, that maybe a limit had been reached “beyond which they don’t go.” Regarding her indictment of Republican presidents’ behavior, from Reagan’s Contra scandal, to Bush II’s disastrous and unlawful Iraq War, to the various crimes committed by the Trump administration, Richardson is spot on. In the case of Reagan and Bush II, crimes were committed in the name of “patriotism.” In Trump’s case, he simply does whatever he wants, including stopping the onset of a regional conflict mere minutes after giving the go-ahead to conduct retaliatory strikes against Iran.
Beyond warmongering, Trump’s White House recently blocked former aide Hope Hicks from answering questions posed by the House Judiciary Committee. The Washington Post reported pro-impeachment Democrats felt this development strengthened their argument to begin proceedings. Though Hicks is a private citizen, the White House argued she possessed immunity in reference to inquiries about her experience as an aide. In all, Hicks avoided 155 questions. The only question she answered regarding her tenure in the White House was whether her first day was a sunny or cloudy day— “it was a cloudy day.”
What is the administration hiding?
Democrats are nearly unanimous in their anger of Hicks’ Trump-induced silence. Committee member Ted Lieu, a Representative from California, claimed he was watching “obstruction of justice in action.”
Alongside that, U.S. Rep. Jim Himes, joined more than 70 other congressional Democrats in calling for an impeachment inquiry. As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, Himes’ declaration is newsworthy, but it doesn’t change the fact that Pelosi continues to shy away from the issue.
If the Democrats are going to impeach Trump, they should waste no more time in doing so. Their efforts and momentum risk falling victim to the Democratic primaries, which have already made headlines after Kamla Harris’ soon-to-be historic confrontation with a clearly shaken Joe Biden.
It would seem the next boost impeachment efforts could gain is from Robert Mueller’s forthcoming testimony. Democrats announced on Tuesday, June 28th that special counsel Mueller had agreed to testify in front of Congress, namely the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees, on July 17th.
Mueller’s testimony is set to be one of the most-watched events of the Trump presidency, rivaling the Brett Kavanaugh and Dr. Christine Blasey Ford hearings from last fall in terms of spectacle.
However, as highly anticipated as Mueller’s investigation may be, he said in May that “the report is my testimony.” If Mueller does reiterate his report’s findings in front of millions of Americans, the best-case scenario would be his detailing the potential criminality Trump has engaged in, perhaps sparking a public demand for impeachment inquiries.
Personally, I think this news is much ado about nothing as far as impeachment is concerned.At the earliest, Trump isn’t going to leave office until January of 2021. Until then, it is up to Democrats to reshape the party in the mold of true progressives like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. There are mass arrests and deaths occurring at the southern border, the specter of war looms large, and a true people’s party does not exist to challenge conservative rule in 2020. An impeachment inquiry does not have to be launched for the population to know how unconstitutional Trump and his cohorts have been, one just need look at the writing on the walls all over Washington D.C. Instead, time and effort have to be put into creating a viable alternative to four more years of a fascist president.
Photo by David Everett Strickler
U.S. Supreme Court Issues Decision Blocking Federal Courts From Hearing Partisan Gerrymandering Cases
Policy Summary: On June 27, 2019 the United States Supreme Court handed down its decision in Rucho v. Common Cause, a partisan gerrymandering case out of North Carolina. That case had been consolidated with Lamone v. Benisek, which was a challenge to a partisan gerrymandering case from Maryland. The North Carolina case challenged how state Republican legislators, who were the political party in power, drew state district and congressional district maps while the Maryland case challenged how the party of state Democratic legislators, then in power in that state, drew that State’s electoral map. The maps at issue were drawn in a way that ensured Republicans in North Carolina and Democrats in Maryland would easily win elections in specific districts and give the state a majority of Republican or Democratic representatives in Congress. The map of electoral districts drawn was challenged on the grounds of Equal Protection, First Amendment Free Speech, the Elections Clause and Article 1, § 2 of the Constitution.
The Equal Protection claim was based on the rationale that some people’s votes were not equal with other people’s votes because the votes were spread out over numerous districts to have any significant effect. The First Amendment Free Speech claim was premised on the charge that partisan gerrymandering was punishing a class of voters because of their political affiliation and beliefs and suppressing their political voice. The Elections Clause and Article 1, § 2 of the Constitution both direct elected officials to be “elected by the people” which plaintiffs claim is not happening because the redrawn districts are manipulated in a way where a specified candidate wins because of how the map is drawn instead of being “chosen” by the people.
At the Federal District Court level in North Carolina, a three – judge panel first concluded that a map drawn for North Carolina in 2016 was unconstitutional on Equal Protection grounds and also violated Article 1, § 2 of the Constitution. (This clause lays out the requirements that elected officials of the House of Representatives be “chosen by the People of the several States”). After some procedural wrangling, the case was heard again by a three – judge panel of the Federal District Court where the maps were again declared unconstitutional on the same grounds but this time the maps were also declared unconstitutional under First Amendment Free Speech grounds. The case was then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In Maryland, the trial case revealed that a state congressional map of Maryland that involved the Sixth District had been redrawn by moving 360,000 voters out of the district and moving 350,000 new voters into the redrawn district. The effect of this move reduced the number of Republicans in the Sixth District by about 66,000 and increased the number of Democrats by about 24,000. This led to the district, which had long been a Republican district, flipping to a Democratic candidate in 2012. At trial, the court held that the new Maryland map violated the First Amendment. The case was then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and consolidated with the Rucho case from North Carolina.
In June 2019 the U.S. Supreme Court decided in a 5-4 decision that partisan gerrymandering cases are not justiciable. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Analysis: Despite the name “partisan gerrymandering” the issue itself has become one of those rare issues in American politics where both sides of the political aisle have agreed that a judicial solution is needed to reign in this political tactic. Back in March, former Attorney General Eric Holder and former Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger spoke out together to urge for a judicial remedy from the U.S. Supreme Court. But the 5 – 4 decision in Rucho v. Common Cause effectively put an end for a possible judicial role in handling these kinds of cases.
What Chief Justice John G. Roberts did in writing the majority opinion was hold partisan gerrymandering cases as “non – justiciable.” In legal terms, a non – justiciable case means that the controversy of the case is not for a court to decide because it deals with political issues which would be better resolved by appealing to elected representatives who have authority over political disputes. He also went on to say that there are no “principled, rational…standard [or] rule” from which a court could examine partisan gerrymandering cases. Because of the difficulty in developing a rule, his opinion decides instead to leave it up to individual state legislatures to fix the problem and effectively ignores the harms alleged under the Equal Protection, Free Speech and constitutional claims from both the Elections Clause and Article 1, § 2.
However, Justice Elena Kagan’s dissent simply takes down Chief Justice Roberts’ majority opinion. If there are no principal or rational standard or rule, as Chief Justice Roberts said, then how did the lower courts go through an entire trial before the case came to the Supreme Court? She expertly goes through the trial cases from North Carolina and Maryland and showed how the judges applied legal standards and tests to invalidate the redrawn maps and asks why couldn’t the Supreme Court adopt those same tests? Furthermore, Justice Kagan explained that there are vote dilution legal tests used to ensure that one person’s vote will approximately carry the same weight as every other person’s vote. Yet the majority opinion here simply ignores that partisan gerrymandering comes very close to making a person’s vote not count for much when it allows votes to be spread out over numerous districts. The Court could have easily adopted that legal standard instead of simply saying there are no legal standards or rules for a court to use. And finally, Justice Kagan used the words of the Chief Justice in the opinion as well as prior cases to note that even though no solution has ever been developed in the past this Court has always recognized that extreme partisan gerrymandering has never been tolerated. Most everyone agrees, even the Chief Justice, and yet the Chief Justice has decided that there is nothing for a court to do to resolve the problem even though the Supreme Court has fashioned judicial remedies for racial gerrymandering and “one person, one vote” cases in the past. With prominent politicians from both sides of the political aisle, members of the judiciary from the lower courts and ordinary citizens in Fair Map organizations around the country calling for a little help from the Supreme Court it was incredibly disappointing that the Court’s majority opinion said that partisan gerrymandering cases will not be heard by federal courts. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
- Brennan Center for Justice – non – profit group blog page on Rucho v. Common Cause decision.
- American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – comments on the Supreme Court decision.
- National Democratic Redistricting Committee (NDRC) – comment from Eric Holder and NDRC on the Supreme Court decision.
This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact Rod@USResistnews.org.
Photo by Aditya Joshi
President Trump Paves the Way Towards War With Iran
Summary
On June 20th, the New York Times reported that President Trump had ordered a military strike against Iran but canceled it while the planes were in the air. “We were cocked & loaded to retaliate last night on 3 different sights when I asked, how many will die” the President tweeted, “150 people, sir, was the answer from a General. 10 minutes before the strike I stopped it, not proportionate to shooting down an unmanned drone.” The day before, Iran had shot down an unmanned US surveillance drone. The US and Iranian governments both released conflicting reports of the GPS coordinates at which the drone was destroyed, with Iran claiming it was within Iranian borders and ignoring radio warnings, while the US claimed it was 20 miles into international airspace.
A week before this incident, US Central Command reported that two vessels were hit by a limpet in the Gulf of Oman, and released a video claiming to show an Iranian Revolutionary Guard boat removing an unexploded mine from one of the tankers, the Japanese owned Kokuka Courageous. The next morning the Courageous’s owner contested the US military’s version of events, stating that the ship was attacked by a flying projectile. The attack came just as Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe met with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani as part of a diplomatic mission to smooth over contentions with the United States.
The tension between the two countries has steadily grown ever since President Trump unilaterally withdrew from the Iran Deal in May of last year, despite Iran’s commitment to the terms of the deal. Sanctions were placed upon Iran, severely hurting the country’s ability to export oil – a painful erosion of Iran’s economy. In May of this year, US National Security Advisor John Bolton sent an aircraft carrier and a bomber task force to the Gulf of Oman. The stated goal of this military buildup was to “send a clear and unmistakable message” in response to unspecified threats. Iran has recently resumed stockpiling low-enriched uranium. If it passes the 300kg cap it will be considered to be in violation of the Iran Deal.
Analysis
Even if the US government is telling the truth with regards to the destroyed drone, military action against Iran is still not legally justified. The Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation, of which both the US and Iran are signatories, maintains that “every State has complete and exclusive sovereignty over the airspace above its territory.” Former Air Force navigator and intelligence officer H. Bruce Franklin explained that even if the drone was in international waters, there is a further range for which a state has the right to demand identification, and that “any unidentified drone flying within 17 miles of the US would most likely be shot down.” The United Nations Charter also requires that military force be used only in self-defense or with the approval of the Security Council. Even under US domestic law, military force is only allowed after a declaration of war by Congress, a national emergency created by an “attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces”, or “specific statutory authorization”, per the US War Powers Resolution. None of these requirements have been met, meaning this would be an illegal war.
On Wednesday, President Trump told Fox News that a war with Iran “wouldn’t last very long.” This represents a vast underappreciation of the challenge presented by a military standoff with Iran. In 2002 the US military conducted a war game in the Gulf of Oman to test and display its new military capabilities called Millenium Challenge 2002. The opponent, referred to simply as “Red”, was a clear stand-in for Iran. As soon as the battle began, Red overwhelmed the US Navy with a bombardment of low-tech weaponry, quickly destroying the US carrier and dozens of ships. The simulation had to be restarted with the Red team severely handicapped for the US to achieve victory. The exercise laid bare the hubris and weakness of a military which prioritizes expensive defense contracts over military utility, as well as the difficulty of defeating a capable opponent in the region.
What makes it so easy to illustrate the disaster that would be a war against Iran is that we have such clear examples of comparable mistakes in just the past two decades. The Iraq War was sold based on fabricated threats and billed as a simple in-and-out regime change. When Iraq was invaded, it had less than a third of the population of modern-day Iran, as well as a smaller military and less wealthy society. Defeating the Iranian military would be a long and expensive conflict, but it’s important to remember that’s just the beginning of the true war. It took a little over a month to defeat the Iraqi military and seize the country, but US armed forces remained in the country for a decade, fighting a brutal war against a lingering insurgency. A war in Iran would likely pull in other militant groups, particularly Hezbollah, who have shown themselves to be highly proficient in asymmetrical warfare. The Straight of Hormuz would likely be shut down, preventing the transportation of one-third of the world’s oil supply. The Middle East would certainly be further destabilized, and conflict would likely spill over into Israel, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and Iraq. In the past five years, the Syrian Civil War spurred a migrant crisis which placed enormous strains on the institutions of European governments and prompted the rise of far-right political parties across the continent. It’s difficult to imagine the number of ways that this war could, and likely would go wrong. We see foreshadowing in the regional conflicts of the past several decades. The difference here is that it would all be magnified to a level we likely haven’t seen before. If President Trump, Mike Pompeo, and John Bolton push us into this war it will be a historical catastrophe, and the only solution would be a return to the anti-war solidarity and activism our country has seemed to have forgotten.
Resistance Resources
- Peace Action: A grassroots peace network which has helped reduce US aggression towards countries such as Iran.
- Veterans for Peace: An international organization made up of military veterans, military family members, and allies, working to building a culture of peace, exposing the true costs of war, and healing the wounds of war
This Brief was submitted by U.S. RESIST NEWS Foreign Policy Analyst Colin Shanley: Contact Colin@usresistnews.org
EPA I Clean Energy Rule (ACE) Rolls Back Regulations for Coal Industry
Policy Summary
In response to President Trump’s Executive Order 13873, Andrew Wheeler, Trump appointed Environmental Protection Agency administrator, announced the introduction of the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule that will replace the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan (CCP), which was stayed by the supreme court in 2016.
According to the EPA’s fact sheet, the ACE is comprised of two distinct acts: the repeal of the CCP, and the introduction of new emissions standards and guidelines for implementation on a state-by-state basis.
Citing the 2016 supreme court decision, Wheeler and the EPA claim that the CCP was an overreach of the Agency’s jurisdiction and set unrealistic goals. Hence, the ACE is meant to address what it sees as a federal overreach and to outline achievable and realistic goals.
The second part of the ACE is to set new regulatory guidelines for emission standards that are to be based on provisions introduced at the state level. States will have three years to submit plans for emissions regulation to be approved by the EPA.
The explicit goals of these new regulations are to provide the affordability of coal-fired electricity while gradually reducing emissions. The EPA estimates that ACE will cover hundreds of coal plants across the country, prolonging the life-span of coal-fired energy.
Policy Analysis
There are two problematic features of the EPA’s final ACE regulation. The first is that it dilutes the language behind the policies needed to address man-made climate change. The second problem is that the rule ignores the viability and safety of alternative energy sources.
In their recent press briefing, Wheeler and the EPA described their new regulations in a way that emphasizes the importance of emissions reduction while at the same time sustaining reliance coal based energy as a means to pursue it. This is a contradiction in terms. Trump’s new regulation cannot have its cake and eat it too. By suggesting that relaxing regulations of coal-fired electricity will be a means to reduce emissions, the EPA under President Trump completely equivocates. Reducing emissions becomes a euphemism that means either nothing much or increased use of coal based energy.
Recently Masha Gessen wrote about a similar semantic phenomenon connected to the Trump appointee to the position of director of policy planning at the State Department. In her article Gessen points out that the directors use of empty and meaningless language based on lose descriptions of the President’s hunches undermines the power to create a stable political reality. It is the same in the case of the EPA. If federal agencies continue to couch environmentally damaging decisions in hunches from the President, there will no longer be reality behind the policy of federal agencies.
In an article published last month in the New York Review of Books, Bill McKibben, founder of 350.org, frames a new conception of peak oil that predicts a sea change in the viability of alternative energy sources. Citing the abrupt bankruptcy of Peabody coal in 2016 and a 50% drop in the price of alternative energy in India. The difference in price of wind and solar compared to coal energy sources in emerging economies belies the Trump administration’s argument. Presumably wide and solar energy can be similarly affordable in the US.
Resistance Resources:
- Climate Deregulation Tracker
- U.S. Geological Survey
- Union of Concerned Scientists
- This website has information related to 350.org
- NYT Climate Fwd
Photo by: Nick Nice